PRESIDENTIAL REPORT
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
President, Marc Maurer

DENVER, COLORADO JULY6,1989

[PICTURE]Marc Maurer gives Presidential Report.

Last year, as we came together in our convention
(the largest gathering of the blind ever held in the
history of the world), it seemed to me that we had
completed one of the
most successful years the
National Federation of
the Blind had ever had.
As I come before our
forty-ninth annual convention
here in Denver, I
think the same statement
is equally applicable.
Despite the problems we
have had (and there have
certainly been many of
them), we, the organized
blind, are stronger today,
more unified in our purpose,
and more harmonious
than we have
ever been.
Sometimes we have measured our growth by the
increase in the number of our publications,
sometimes by the number of new chapters or
affiliates that have come
into the Federation, and
sometimes by legislative
or administrative
achievements. This year
we have not only been
successful in strengthening
our programs and increasing
our membership,
but we have also
gained a deepened understanding
of what we
must do and how we must
act.

Our public education
programs (designed to
inculcate in the consciousness
of the public at large the normality and productive capacity of
the blind) have received during the past twelve
months growing acceptance and support. For the
first time our television public service announcements
are being carried on all of the
major networks and a number of the cable channels-ABC,
CBS, NBC, Cable News Network,
Greater Media Cable, Manhattan Cable, Tempo
Television Network, Trinity Broadcasting, and
WTBS Cable. We estimate that our public service
announcements are reaching the homes of
over one hundred and twenty-five million
viewers. In addition, our radio spots are being
broadcast on five different networks. There are
more than six thousand individual radio stations
in these networks -- three quarters of all the commercial
radio stations in the United States.
When the subject matter deals with blindness,
there is one voice on the airwaves more than any
other --shaping public attitudes, offering encouragement,
presenting information, and
providing inspiration. That voice belongs to the
foremost leader of blind people in our nation -- Dr. Kenneth Jernigan. That message belongs to
the National Federation of the Blind.

We have often said that if the public understood
the real problem of blindness, much of the exclusion
which occurs would disappear. Our
public education programs are central to this
effort. Each time we show blind people crossing
busy streets, working in offices, and handling all
the activities of daily life, some of the prejudice
and part of the fear about blindness are
eliminated. In the past twelve months we have
achieved real progress toward this end. In addition
to our public service announcements on
television and radio, we have distributed millions
of letters describing the work that blind people
do. We have placed messages offering assistance
or information about blindness in tens of
thousands of businesses, and we have issued
hundreds of press releases about activities of the
organized blind movement. These releases have
been carried in newspapers and magazines
throughout the country. All of this public education
has a direct impact on opportunities available
to the blind.

Not only has the significance of the organized
blind been recognized in the United States, but
our unique programs have also stimulated interest
in a number of foreign lands. Between our
1988 and 1989 conventions, approximately fifty
foreign visitors have come to our headquarters,
at the National Center for the Blind. These
guests (from Ireland, England, Japan, Australia,
India, Korea, Canada, and the Caribbean) have
come to learn from the blind of the United States.
How did the blind become organized? What
methods did we use to achieve the gains we have
made? Why do the blind of our country possess
such independence? How did it happen that the
organized blind movement is at the cutting edge
of change in matters involving blindness? These
are the questions that attract interest not only
throughout our nation but also from around the
world.

Last September the second quadrennial convention
of the World Blind Union was held in
Madrid, Spain. Dr. Jernigan, President of the
North America/Caribbean region of the World
Blind Union, headed our delegation. For over a
week, representatives from approximately one
hundred countries met to consider the future
possibilities for the blind. Although these meetings
sometimes seemed chaotic, our delegates
brought a spirit of self-reliance and self
determination which changed the emphasis and
altered the focus of the entire conference. After
the meeting in Spain, we mailed several hundred
issues of the Braille Monitor to delegates all over
the world. The National Federation of the Blind
is leading the way for the blind of this country and
also for blind people throughout the world who
are seeking independence.

Dr. Jernigan also traveled last winter to the
United Nations to make a presentation on behalf
of the Federation. Public documents and other
materials are almost never available in Braille.
The National Federation of the Blind presented
a computer, a Braille printer, and our own Braille
translation program to the U.N. These gifts will
be used to produce documents in Braille for
those who need them. U.N. Secretary General
Javier Perez de Cuellar personally accepted the
translation system on behalf of the nations of the
world.

Last summer, shortly after our convention, Dr.
Jernigan appeared in Montreal as a member of a
panel consisting of representatives of some of the
major organizations of and for the blind in North
America. The purpose of the discussion was to
consider the present circumstances and future
prospects of the blindness system in the United
States and Canada. As part of the give and take
of the meeting, Dr. Jernigan invited the organizations
present to a meeting at the National Center
for the Blind in Baltimore to consider the possibility
of finding common ground and taking
(even if only in a limited way and on a few issues)
concerted action. The invitation was accepted,
and by the time the meeting was held, all of the
major organizations of and for the blind in
Canada and the United States had indicated their
wish to come. Thus, the Ad Hoc Committee on
Joint Organizational Effort came into being and
met this spring in Baltimore. Those present
were: the American Foundation for the Blind,
the Blinded Veterans Association, the Association
for the Education and Rehabilitation of the
Blind and Visually Impaired, the Canadian
Council of the Blind, the Canadian National Institute
for the Blind, the National Library Service
for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, and
the National Federation of the Blind.

A number of projects were proposed and tentative
understandings reached. Although it is too early to say what the final result will be, certaal
things are obvious and beyond dispute. This wa
the first time since the beginning of organized
work for the blind that such a meeting had beoa
held --and it will be remembered that it wa
called, sponsored, and chaired by the National!
Federation of the Blind. The meeting was hisi
toric. It symbolized the new reality in the affairs!
of the blind of this country -- the tacit statement
of our centrality in charting the future, the recognition
in tangible form of our growing prestige,
influence, and strength.

We have come a long way since the early beginnings
of the 1940's. We are no longer an organization
which asks, and hopes it will be heard.
We are now a force which must be considered in
any decision affecting the blind or the blindness
system. This does not mean that we should behave
aggressively, arrogantly, or without
restraint. Quite the contrary. With power goes
responsibility, and we understand that. At the
same time we also understand that the
governmental and private agencies which provide
services in our field have a responsibility not
only to themselves and the public but also to the
blind, the people who are most affected by their
behavior -- and not just to individual blind people
but to the organized blind as well. Individuals
can be selected on the basis of docility or willingness
to say what is wanted. We cannot. Those
agencies which provide good service and treat
the blind with dignity and respect can expect
similar treatment from us. Those agencies which
give poor service and poor treatment to the blind
should heed the Biblical injunction: As ye do, so
shall it be done unto you. Indeed, we have arrived
at a new day in the affairs of the blind.

Approximately six thousand blind people are
employed in sheltered workshops throughout the
country. Very often, working conditions are poor
and wages are low. Nowhere is this more
dramatically demonstrated than in the Southwest Lighthouse for the Blind in Lubbock, Texas. Last
September I went to Lubbock to meet with
workers from the Lighthouse. I discovered that
most of them were being paid two dollars and five
cents an hour. A few were receiving even less -- some as little as eighty-five cents. A month earlier,
the Lighthouse president had told the
workers that the agency was planning to begin
deducting money from their pay envelopes for
their health insurance coverage. Health insurance
had previously been provided by the
workshop. Most of the workers barely had
enough for their food and other living expenses.
Nevertheless, agency officials insisted that these
employees must pay for health insurance or be
fired. Instead of handing over a substantial portion
of their meager wages, the workers called on
the Federation, and the blind took to the streets.
The newspaper stories about the injustice in the
workshop spread over the nation, and both
television and radio carried the news of the exploitation.
The Lighthouse president changed
his mind. The workers would continue to receive
health insurance, and the pay in their envelopes
would not be cut. We won the first round.

Before the end of September, we had taken action
to begin the next step. We hired a lawyer in
Washington, D.C., and helped the Lighthouse
workers file complaints with the United States
Department of Labor. The minimum wage is
three dollars and thirty-five cents an hour. Most
sheltered shop workers in Lubbock are receiving
two dollars and five cents. Nevertheless, they are
expected to work a long day and produce results.
The wages are artificially low and shamefully
meager. So, we made plans to bring pressure to
change them. We submitted complaints to the
Department of Labor. These were the first appeals
ever filed under the 1986 amendments to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and it will be
remembered that they were filed by the National
Federation of the Blind. Because of our efforts
to educate members of Congress in 1985 and
1986, all blind people receiving subminimum
wages have the right to challenge the fairness of
their pay. The lawyer we hired once served as the
Assistant Secretary of Labor. In that position he
learned about the workshops and how they
maneuver to violate the law.

In October of last year still another element was
added to the battle. With our help, shop
employees asked that they be permitted to join a
labor union. The Lighthouse challenged their
right to organize. By November we were preparing
for a full-blown hearing before an officer of
the National Labor Relations Board. This hearing
was of major importance because several
months earlier, a judicial decision had been issued
by the eighth circuit Court of Appeals saying
that blind workers at the Arkansas Lighthouse
for the Blind could not join a union. The right of
blind workers in sheltered workshops to organize
was being eroded. After the setback in Arkansas,
a highly visible public counterstroke was required.
We needed to protect shop workers, and
Lubbock was the place to do it. There will be a
full convention item to discuss this case later in
the week. Without reviewing all the factors involved,
let me just say that the National Federation
of the Blind knows about blindness and the
law. We are also able to get things done. On
December 30, 1988, the workers voted. The
question to be answered was: would the workers
join a union--or not. By the most overwhelming
margin ever recorded in any sheltered workshop
election, the workers gave their answer. We won
that round, too. There is a union at the Southwest
Lighthouse for the Blind in Lubbock, Texas.

In addition to the administrative and legal
proceedings involving the rights of blind sheltered
shop employees, we continue to make
other efforts to bring about improvements in the
shops. Beverley Milkman, the new Executive
Director of the Committee for Purchase from the
Blind and Other Severely Handicapped (the agency responsible for distributing federal contracts
to sheltered workshops), has met with me
at the National Center for the Blind. She will be
participating in the convention program. New
management brings with it an opportunity for a
fresh start and a reappraisal of philosophy. Will
this change bring increased cooperation between
the blind and workshop officials? The answer to
this question is not clear. Nevertheless, the executive
director of the Committee appears to be
more responsive than those who have held this
position in the past. If officials of the Committee
for Purchase use their influence to diminish the
exploitation of workers in Lubbock and elsewhere,
the blind of this nation will be pleased to
work with them. If they do not, we will oppose
them.

Learning Braille is vital to the education of blind
children. Nevertheless, the attitude of teachers
of the blind often reflects the public misconceptions
about blindness. Because teachers fear
blindness themselves, and because they believe
that the blind are inferior, they attack (often
without knowing it) the special tools and techniques
used by the blind. Training with a white
cane is often discouraged for blind students, and
it is frequently the case that Braille is taught only
when there is no alternative. Blind students are
sometimes required to learn print when Braille
would be more efficient. The Charles Cheadle
case is an illustration of the misunderstanding
and prejudice against the blind that exist in the
schools.

Charles Cheadle is the blind son of John and
Barbara Cheadle. Of course, as Federationists
know, Barbara Cheadle is the able president of
the Parents of Blind Children Division and editor
of Future Reflections, our magazine for parents
and educators of blind children. John Cheadle is
employed at the National Center for the Blind.
The Cheadles are thoroughly knowledgeable
about blindness, and they are prepared to fight
for a quality education for their children. Two
years ago Charles Cheadle entered the Baltimourt
County School System. Although he had beea receiving Braille instruction from the educational
institution he had attended, he and his parents
were informed that Braille would no longer be available to him. Not only would he receive no
instruction in its use, but he was also prohibited
from having it in the classroom. As soon as it
became clear that negotiation would not bring
results, we began the process of appeal.

School officials said that Charles made impressive
scores on achievement tests, that he could
see well enough to read print --at least for a
while, and that he could retrieve a pencil which
had been thrown across the room. Therefore,
they said, Charles did not need to know Braille.
On the other hand, we pointed out that Charles
could not read print for very long at a time. After
only a brief period of reading, he found it so
difficult that his interest in literature was declining.
Charles had progressed through the early
grades, and his reading and writing requirements
had become more demanding. As he continued
to advance through school, he would no longer
be able to keep pace with the other students. The
size of the print in a textbook for the middle
grades is smaller than the print in a primer.
Nevertheless, personnel in the school system ordered
him to read print and stated unequivocally
that he would be punished for reading Braille.

The school system may try to punish blind students
for not being able to see, but we are
prepared to take action to prevent it. We
proceeded to a hearing before a state review
panel in August, 1988, and again in January, 1989.
An independent evaluation confirmed our view
that Charles must learn Braille to perform well
in school.

The final order of the state hearing review panel
said that Braille instruction is required and that homework assignments should be completed in
Braille. There was a time when well-educated
individuals were regarded with suspicion, and
books were considered the tools of the devil. In
our supposedly enlightened age, we assume that
this is no longer true. However, if the book is in
Braille, it apparently may be regarded as a sign
of iniquity and banned from the classroom. This
is exactly what happened in the Charles Cheadle
case. The representative for the school system
asked the hearing officer to believe that Charles
Cheadle was being damaged mentally and emotionally
by the very presence of Braille. He suggested
that teaching Charles Braille was tantamount
to child abuse. However, ancient
prejudices cannot be permitted to restrict our
opportunities. We insist on literacy and the fundamental
right of blind children to possess it.
That is one of the reasons why we have the National
Federation of the Blind.

We have also begun this year to take the issue of
Braille literacy for the blind to the United States
Congress. In March, I testified before the Subcommittee
on Select Education of the House of
Representatives. The Education for All Handicapped
Children Act has been twisted by some
educators so that it no longer guarantees what it
was intended to protect. The language of the Act
says that handicapped children are entitled to an
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.
Some of those in the field of education
claim that it is restrictive to learn Braille
because the number of print books is greater than
the number of Braille books. Therefore, (they
argue) the least restrictive environment requires
students to learn print. According to this theory,
Braille (being more restrictive) is prohibited unless
the student has so little eyesight that print is
impossible. In my testimony, I pointed out the
fallacy of this argument and urged the Select
Education Subcommittee to amend the law to
encourage the teaching of Braille.
Some problems with the airlines are still with us,
but there are significant developments to report.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
issued a proposed rule seeking to establish a
federal prohibition against having blind persons
seated near emergency exits on aircraft. The rule
would apply to all seats in rows near all exits on
all flights. The period for submission of public
comments on this issue ended in June. I
responded to the FAA on behalf of the Federation.
As you know, the rule would violate the
nondiscrimination requirement of the law. It
would also increase the danger for the flying
public -- especially the blind. Of course, the most
significant danger of the proposal is that airline
personnel would be sent an unmistakable message
by the government that discrimination
against the blind is all right.

However, prejudice and the hidden fears of
blindness harbored by airline personnel cannot
be tolerated. S. 341, the Air Travel Rights for
Blind Individuals Act, was introduced by Senator
Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina early this
spring. On March 14, Senate hearings were held
before the Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation, and Dr. Jernigan presented
perhaps the most powerful statement ever made
about the rights of the blind in air travel. On the
same day, I appeared for over five minutes on the
"Today Show." Both Dr. Jernigan's testimony
before the committee and my interview on the
"Today Show" have had a substantial impact in
raising the consciousness of members of Congress
and the public about the urgency of
preventing discrimination against the blind. On
June 14, less than a month ago, a guest editorial
by Dr. Jernigan appeared in USA Today. Next to
Dr. Jernigan's striking editorial was a weak (almost
apologetic) argument by the Air Transport
Association (ATA). Dr. Jernigan's editorial contained
a sworn statement by an airline pilot which
said that blind travelers present no hazard in
flying. The ATA said that it had no evidence, but it hoped that common sense would show that the
blind are a threat. When they have no evidence,
they call their prejudice common sense.

H.R. 563 (a bill identical to the one presented by
Senator Hollings) has been introduced in the
House of Representatives by Congressman
James A. Traficant, Jr., of Ohio. It has over 160
co-sponsors. If we take the actions that we must,
Congress will pass the Air Travel Rights for Blind
Individuals Act. We have every expectation that
the Senate will approve the bill shortly. Senator
Hollings has been a staunch and powerful ally.
He agrees with us: a person's blindness should
not be the basis for discriminatory seating on
aircraft. This is what the bill says. Let us work to
see that it becomes law so that we can put discrimination
in the airways behind us forever.

Our efforts to protect the rights of blind vendors
are well known. Even the state agencies have
learned of our effectiveness in support of the
blind vendor program. Two state agencies (one
in Michigan and one in Minnesota) are currently
receiving our help in arbitration proceedings
against federal property managers. Some people
have claimed that the Federation is simply anti
agency and that we cannot work with rehabilitation
officials. Of course, that is not the case.
Here are two examples.

The Michigan case involves a large bulk mail
facility near Detroit. The Postal Service has
refused to issue a permit to bring the facility into
the vending program. Vending machines have
been placed throughout the building. The
machines are currently operated by a commercial
vending company, which pays a portion of the
profits to a recreation fund established by the
postal workers. We think the law is clear. The
profits (all of them) should go to a blind vendor.
The Michigan Commission for the Blind is pressing
forward to obtain a permit to bring the facility
into the vending program, and we are helping
with the arbitration. When agencies fight for
greater opportunities for the blind, they will find
the National Federation of the Blind with them
in the battle.

In Minnesota, officials of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (formerly the Veteran's Administration) claimed a virtual exemption from
the blind vendor priority granted under the RandolphSheppard
Act. But last September, an arbitration
panel, convened by the Secretary of
Education, found that the law applies to veterans'
hospitals just as it does to the rest of the nation.

The specific issue in Minnesota involves one
location currently operated by Dennis Groshel.
Dennis is the only blind vendor at a veterans'
hospital. Before this arbitration began, he was in
danger of losing the business altogether. He was
also being required to pay as much as half of his
income directly to the Veterans Canteen Service.
Now, as a result of last September's arbitration,
the business he operates is secure, and no payments
are being made. It is likely that there will
be further administrative or legal proceedings,
but we will do what we can to help. In the meantime,
all of the proceeds from the vending facility
belong to Dennis. His income has been doubled.
It pays to be a member of the National Federation
of the Blind.

In California, we are assisting Frank Rompal and
Tom Linker with a case against the Department
of Rehabilitation, the state licensing agency for
blind vendors. Last year, when the Department
awarded one of the best vending locations in the
state, rehabilitation officials disregarded their
own rules. These require the appointment of a
selection committee for screening applications
and interviewing candidates. This was not done.
Those with seniority and demonstrated performance
records were apparently not considered in
the selection process. A hearing at the state level
has been held, and an arbitration is pending. The state agency cannot act in violation of the law or
in disregard of its own procedures. When it does,
as in this case, the National Federation of the
Blind will stand with the vendors and fight for
their rights.

The Federation continues to provide personal
assistance to blind persons in resolving Social
Security issues. The case of Sharlene Czaja is a
good example. Shortly before the national convention
last year, Sharlene was notified that she
had been overpaid $6,495.90 in Disability Insurance
benefits. We looked at her situation and
decided that the overpayment determination was
wrong. A hearing occurred the day before
Thanksgiving in New York City.

Sharlene Czaja worked for a time as an investigator
with the human rights department in New
York. The Social Security Administration said
that she had not been entitled to disability insurance
benefits during the period of this
employment. The judge at the hearing agreed
with our argument, and the Social Security Administration
was reversed. Sharlene Czaja had
not been overpaid.

Sometimes one appeal is not enough, but the
National Federation of the Blind is persistent.
We never give up. A year ago, Deborah Strother,
a blind person from Louisiana, was waiting for
the results of a hearing concerning the denial of
her Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
benefits. Social Security had refused to pay her
because they thought she had too much money.
The issue concerned the approval of a Plan to
Achieve Self-Support.

The decision issued last July was favorable, but
the Social Security Administration would not
write the check for the full amount of the back
payment. So, we helped with a second appeal.
The Social Security Administration finally admitted
that it had made an erroneous determination.
Deborah Strother has now received over
$3,000.

In Florida, Louis Lombardo faced a denial of his
Social Security Disability Insurance benefits.
Louis was not a member of the National Federation
of the Blind at the time he contacted us for
help. However, he had read some of the articles
we have published on Social Security. Louis had
received notices requiring repayment of
$31,407.80. The Social Security Administration
wanted the money within thirty days. When we
learned about the case, the initial proceeding in
the appeal had already occurred, and the decision
had been unfavorable. Nevertheless, we agreed
to do our best, and a hearing was held early this
spring. If Louis Lombardo, a blind vendor, had
not known about the National Federation of the
Blind and the work we have done to assist with
Social Security claims, it is a virtual certainty that
the facts would not have been gathered to present
and resolve this case. How often do blind persons
fail to understand or appreciate the value of
becoming involved with the National Federation
of the Blind? Louis Lombardo knows of the
power of the Federation. He will not be required
to reimburse the Social Security Administration,
and he will continue to receive benefits.

Gladys Penney, a blind person from Florida, is
fully insured under Social Security; but all of her
previous claims have been denied. We are currently
helping her with an appeal. If found
eligible, Gladys may receive disability cash
benefits that she should have been paid for a
period of more than thirty years. We believe that
she became eligible to receive them in 1956. On
the other hand, reconstructing the evidence
necessary to prove that she was entitled to
benefits in 1956 may not be possible. One thing
is clear: Gladys Penney is not now receiving
disability insurance, and she is entitled to get it.
The only question to be answered is how much
we can help her recover.

Rami Rabby has attempted to become employed
in the service of the United States as a foreign
service officer in the State Department. In this
position, he would be responsible for working in
a number of foreign countries. He has passed all
of the required tests. By now he would have been
employed in the foreign service if he had been
able to see. The only reason for his rejection is
blindness. Last November, the State Department
announced that it had adopted a new policy.
Although the State Department had never hired
a blind person as a foreign service officer, it had
been accepting applications from blind people
and giving them the tests. An official of the State
Department said that to deny the blind the right
to sit for these examinations would be discriminatory.
The State Department declared
that it would certainly not discriminate against
the blind and that blind people who could take
the foreign service test under normal conditions
would be welcome to apply. However, the test
would not be made available in Braille, and blind
applicants could not use readers to take it. In
other words, sight is required. If you cannot see,
you will not be permitted to take the test. No
discrimination, of course. Just a little test to
determine your qualifications. It is shallow,
twisted logic like this that causes so much
mistrust of the government. If the people designing
this State Department policy are charged with
international relations for the United States, it is
no wonder that we find ourselves in so much
trouble around the world. We are working with
members of Congress to reverse this policy.
Congressman Gerry Sikorski is leading the effort.
He will be with us here at the convention
later in the week.

In Connecticut, Laurie Doyle wanted a job doing
substitute teaching in the East Hartford School
District. The District hired her over the phone
but withdrew the offer of employment when it
learned that Laurie is blind. However, Laurie
Doyle is not the weak, helpless, insignificant person the school system thought a blind person
should be --and she has over fifty thousand
friends. When we questioned District officials,
they sent a written explanation claiming that sight
is a bona ride occupational qualification for
teachers. Tell that to the thousands of blind
people who are teaching successfully in the
public schools every day. Tell it to the National
Federation of the Blind. Tell it to the judge. It
didn't take long for officials of the East Hartford
School District to recognize that they had made
an error. The decision was rescinded, and Laurie
Doyle was paid $3,000 in back wages.

In South Carolina, we have taken action to help
Joe Urbanek bring suit against the Carnival
Cruise Lines. For some time we have tried unsuccessfully
to work with Carnival Cruise Lines
to obtain a change in its policy concerning the
blind. Carnival Cruise Lines officials insist that
blind people may not travel alone on a cruise.
Any blind person on a Carnival Cruise ship must
be accompanied by a sighted guide. It has been
a long time since I have needed a baby sitter, and
I suspect you feel the same. We have tried to
avoid confrontation on this, but enough is
enough. Carnival Cruise Lines must change this
policy. In short, a lawsuit has been filed. On land
or sea, we will not remain idle while blind people
suffer discrimination. That is why we have the
strength, the commitment, and the resources we
do. It is why there is the National Federation of
the Blind.

In another South Carolina case, we have helped
Michael Young with a custody battle. His right
to rear his own children was being challenged on
grounds of blindness. Frank Coppel, one of the
Federation leaders in South Carolina, testified in
court on behalf of Michael Young. The substance
of his testimony was that the blind are
neither unusual nor abnormal. We have the
same capacities, hopes, dreams, and understandings
that sighted people have. Don Capps, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the
National Federation of the Blind and who has
been in the leadership of this movement for over
thirty years, also appeared on Michael Young's
behalf. Don Capps described to the court his
experience as a blind father and his work with
thousands of blind people throughout the United
States. He told the judge that it is unreasonable
to break up a family because there are
misunderstandings about the ability of the blind.
The love of a father for his children is no less
significant because the father is blind. The
decision of the court affirmed the rights of blind
parents. Michael Young was granted custody.

There are new developments to report this year
about the National Accreditation Council for
Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped
(NAC). This so-called accrediting body
was created as a political tool and shield for the
most regressive and least effective agencies in the
country, and it continues to be unresponsive to
the needs of the blind and unconcerned about the
quality of programs for blind people. NAC's
claim that it is a reputable accrediting organization
must be measured against the impact of poor
service to the blind and the shocking behavior of
some of the staff members at NACaccredited
agencies. Disclosures of child abuse at the
Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, (a
NAC-accredited agency) are only the most
recent revelations. At this school the children
were abused physically and sexually. One student
died because those charged with her care
failed in their responsibilities. We have, of
course, been actively working to try to change
conditions at the Florida School. We do not
believe (as NAC apparently does) that the death
of a child can be ignored. Who with any decency
at all would try to defend an institution where
such behavior is permitted? Today, most of us in
this room are adults. Once, we were children.
How many of us had the power to defend ourselves
against the abuse that has been exposed at
the School for the Deaf and the Blind in Florida?
Who will protect the children if the schools won't
do it? There is only one answer. We must accept
the responsibility ourselves. We have often said
that ours is very serious business. It can become
no more important than the security and care of
blind children --our children.

There is more about NAC. Many of NAC's adherents
are beginning to understand that accreditation
by NAC is harmful to the blind. The
American Foundation for the Blind has been the
principal funding source for NAC since 1967. In
all of these years, over half of the NAC budget
has come directly from the Foundation. The
American Foundation for the Blind has quite
literally kept NAC alive. From time to time,
there are rumors that the Foundation is ceasing
its support of NAC. One can only hope that the
administration of the American Foundation for
the Blind has the decency to cease supporting
programs that defend and protect agencies where
child abuse occurs.

Last May, the Virginia Department for the
Visually Handicapped took formal action against
renewal of its NAC accreditation. The person
who was the acting head of the Virginia Department
at that time has now become the Federal
Commissioner of Rehabilitation Services.

The Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind in
Washington, D.C., (one of NAC's earliest and
staunchest supporters) has withdrawn its accreditation.

In
April, the Michigan Commission for the Blind
voted not to put rehabilitation money into agencies
that are NAC-accredited. As might have
been expected, NAC's supporters (the few that
are left) rallied to get the decision reversed.
They have not succeeded. At a meeting (billed
as a press conference by NAC supporters -- which, incidentally, was not particularly well- attended by the press) Allen Harris, who is
treasurer of the National Federation of the Blind
and a member of the Board of the Michigan
Commission for the Blind, was asked why the
Commission had taken its action. He responded
by saying that NAC accreditation has never
meant quality service, and he cited the example
of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind.
The NAC treasurer, one Gordon Steinhauer, is
employed at a hospital. He was asked if the
hospital was accredited. When he said that it
certainly was accredited by a commission for accrediting
hospitals, one of the NAC officials followed
up with this question: "Has anyone ever
died at your hospital?" Such a question is as
revealing as any commentary on NAC. People
who are terribly ill are taken to the hospital.
Some of them recover. Some of them don't. This
is understandable--but the children at school do
not ordinarily die. If they do, something is horribly
wrong. Nevertheless, NAC supporters
gathered to defend such behavior. As I have said,
Allen Harris is a member of the Board of the
Michigan Commission. He and the organized
blind of that state have every intention of insisting
that programs for the blind provide real service,
and not just talk. He has every intention of
defending the blind of the state against the activities
of NAC and its associates. And we have
every intention of standing with him to help him
get it done. When we are finished, services for
the blind will be improved, and there will be no
more NAC.

During the past half-dozen years we in the
Federation have conducted the most extensive
scholarship program dealing with the blind in the
United States. This has been one of the most
fruitful efforts we have made. The success
achieved by those who have received scholarships
shows just how effective this program is.
Eileen Rivera has received one of them. She is
now the Director of Low-Vision Programming
for Johns Hopkins University. Christopher Kuczynski has gotten another. He is becoming a
lawyer and will soon be taking a job with a prestigious
law firm in Pennsylvania. Michael Bailiff
has been awarded still another. He has just spent
a year in Europe on a Watson Fellowship. Shortly,
he will be entering Yale University to study
law. There are dozens of other examples. Our
scholarship program has helped bring educational
opportunities not only to scholarship
recipients, but also to those who have been encouraged
and inspired by the Federation. This
one program is helping significantly to change
the meaning of blindness. It is one more reason
for the National Federation of the Blind.

Of course, with all of our growth, we continue
with the fundamental activities of the movement.
We are distributing literature and materials at a
record rate. Approximately one and a half million
items of literature and other materials have
been shipped from our Center this past year. Our
distribution of aids and appliances has almost
doubled, and we have provided more canes than
ever before. We have expanded the number of
aids and appliances that we make available to
everything from travel aids to writing equipment,
from computers to clocks. We now distribute
over five hundred different pieces of literature.
With approximately 30,000 copies being
produced each month, the Braille Monitor (published
in print, in Braille, on disk, and on cassette)
is the most widely circulated and thoroughly read
publication dealing with blindness in this nation.
We continue to produce Future Reflections, the
magazine for parents and educators of blind
children. There are over ten thousand readers.
We distribute the Voice of the Diabetic to the
blind and to interested sighted people. We circulated
over 30,000 copies of a recent issue of this
magazine. There are also the Student Division
Newsletter, the American Bar Association Journal, the publication of the National Association
to Promote the Use of Braille, and a growing number of newsletters from state affiliates and
divisions.

A few months ago, our Committee on Research
and Development (one of the most able groups
of blind scientists ever assembled) developed
software which makes a talking computer become
a scientific calculator. I have been told that
this calculator can handle numbers so big that
they exceed the number of atoms in the whole
known universe. Blind scientists who need a
highly-developed calculator will be able to do
much with this new product.

During the past year we have continued to conduct
seminars at the National Center for the
Blind, bringing state and local leaders from
throughout the nation to Baltimore for sessions
of intense training. In addition, there have also
been seminars for educators of blind children. In
June, we hosted, in conjunction with Johns Hopkins
University, a symposium on the perceptual
ability of blind youth. It has often been assumed
that blind people are severely limited in learning
because much of human knowledge is learned
through the eye. However, this symposium
focused on blind people's learning through
raised pictures. The conclusion reached is that
whether the perception is visual or tactile, information
is gathered in the same way and with the
same efficiency. Blind people may learn by using
a different method, but the education is just as
rapid, just as valuable, and just as effective.

On June 2, 1989, an incident occurred in West
Monroe, Louisiana, which outlines with painful
force the vital necessity for our movement. Jo
Anne Fernandes, a member of the Board of
Directors of the National Federation of the Blind
and president of our Louisiana affiliate, went
with fifteen others to a nightclub called Sugie's.
Jo Anne is the Director of the Federation's orientation
center in Louisiana. She teaches our
philosophy there and encourages blind students
to become independent. The program she
directs has had tremendous success.

Fourteen of the sixteen people who tried to enter
the nightclub were blind. As they stepped
through the door, JoAnne and her companions
were met by one of the nightclub's owners.
There ensued a confrontation which we had
thought was far in the past. Sugie's owner said
that the blind were not welcome unless they
agreed to be led to the bathroom because he
thought they would run into tables and spill
drinks. If drinks were spilled (regardless of the
circumstances), the blind must agree to pay for
them. Finally, the owner said that all blind individuals
must sign a waiver of liability holding
him blameless in case of injury. As self-respecting
Federation members would expect, JoAnne
and the students with her refused. When they
tried to discuss the matter with Sugie's personnel,
the police were called, and JoAnne and three
students were arrested. When the newspapers
reported the incident, they enlarged upon the
prejudicial attitude expressed at Sugie's. Notice
the sanctimonious tone of the bar owner. Here
are excerpts of his opinions as quoted in the
newspaper.

"'I was looking out for their behalf, they won't use
the aisle. They bump tables and spill drinks. All
I was trying to do was help. I even help my drunks
to the bathroom and back. I take them home
sometimes. That's the way I am. I never told
them they couldn't come in at all. I'm looking at
liabilities here.'"

So, that's what the bar owner thinks -- that blind
people and drunks are in the same category and
should receive the same treatment. The bar
owner may be expressing his sincere belief, but
his attitude does not reflect reality. Furthermore, we are no longer willing to tolerate lack of
opportunity based on prejudice. A press conference
was held in Ruston, Louisiana, and the Federationists at the Louisiana Center told
reporters what had really happened. The word
spread throughout the state, and public officials
offered support. In addition, a lawyer was
retained to defend the rights of the blind to enter
Sugie's nightclub. The charges were dropped.
Ours is serious business. We know our rights,
and we know how to get them. However, on the
road to equality there is frequently confrontation.
We regret the necessity for it, but we are
simply not willing to tolerate second-class status.
That is why we have formed the National Federation
of the Blind.

When members of the public think of blindness,
they should come to recognize that there is one
organization in our country speaking and acting
on behalf of the blind. We who are blind can and
will help each other as brothers and sisters in the
work place, the school, and the home. No one
can solve our problems for us, we must do that
for ourselves. We have made this commitment,
and we intend to keep it.

As I reflect on the activities of the past twelve
months, it is clear to me that the Federation has
never been in better health. There is a closeness
in this organization which is unparalleled. We
expect much of each other -- ingenuity, energy,
commitment, courage. But there is another element.
We have the capacity to care. This year is
one to remember. All of us have made it that
way. As President I have come to know the
sacrifice and dedication of the individual members
of this organization. Not only do I feel
humility at being entrusted with such responsibility,
but I hope that I may measure up to the
honor you have given. There is one more thing.
I believe that everybody in this organization -- every officer, every member -- can feel a justifiable
pride in our achievements during the past
twelve months. If we do our work well (and I am
absolutely certain that we will), next year will be
even better. This is my report.